Print
Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy
by National Secular Society
Reposted from:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/lordsapproveabolitionofblasphemy.html
After an acrimonious debate in which the bogeyman of secularism was repeatedly invoked, the House of Lords on Wednesday March 5 2008 accepted the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that abolishes the common law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
The amendment had originally been introduced by Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris in the House of Commons, but the Government had persuaded him to withdraw it after promising to introduce its own amendment later in the Lords. This it has now done, although – if Baroness Andrews' speech was anything to go by – with something less than enthusiasm.
The Bishops in the House were divided, some saying that the abolition was unnecessary and undesirable and others saying that it was inevitable and that the Church should therefore concede. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, had agreed to the Government's amendment during a consultation, but expressed strong reservations about the timing of the move.
Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.
Lib Dem peer Lord Avebury pressurised the Government into keeping its word by tabling his own abolition amendment. He also introduced other amendments to the Bill that would clear out some other ancient Church privileges, such as Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 1860, under which Peter Tatchell was charged when he interrupted a sermon by the then-Archbishop of Canterbury in Canterbury Cathedral. These further amendments were rejected by the Government and opposed by the bishops.
The Government had conducted a "short and sharp" consultation with the Church of England about the amendment, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing.
Evan Harris said that this debate had been going on for 21 years, since the Law Commission had recommended abolition of the law, and for the Church it would never be the right time.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society attended the debate and welcomed the Lords' decision. He said: "The National Secular Society has been campaigning to abolish the blasphemy laws for 140 years. The laws have an iniquitous history of persecution, and because it is a common law offence with no limit on punishment, it has resulted in executions and imprisonments with hard labour for people who wrote and said things that would, in the modern day, be considered trivial. It is disgraceful that such a relic of religious savagery has survived into the 21st century."
Mr Porteous Wood pointed out that although the UK blasphemy laws are in the course of abolition, there is growing pressure in the Islamic world to outlaw so-called religious defamation. This pressure is being applied at the United Nations and its Human Rights Council. He commented: "If the United Nations Human Rights Council succumbs to the pressure from the Islamic countries to permit laws against religious defamation, it will be a major blow to freedom of expression, which underpins both democracy and civilisation itself. Nations who cherish freedom should wake up to the dangers of such moves, rather than sit idly by as they have done so far."
Some quotes from the debate in the House of Lords mentioning Richard Dawkins:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/lordsapproveabolitionofblasphemy.html
After an acrimonious debate in which the bogeyman of secularism was repeatedly invoked, the House of Lords on Wednesday March 5 2008 accepted the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that abolishes the common law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
The amendment had originally been introduced by Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris in the House of Commons, but the Government had persuaded him to withdraw it after promising to introduce its own amendment later in the Lords. This it has now done, although – if Baroness Andrews' speech was anything to go by – with something less than enthusiasm.
The Bishops in the House were divided, some saying that the abolition was unnecessary and undesirable and others saying that it was inevitable and that the Church should therefore concede. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, had agreed to the Government's amendment during a consultation, but expressed strong reservations about the timing of the move.
Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.
Lib Dem peer Lord Avebury pressurised the Government into keeping its word by tabling his own abolition amendment. He also introduced other amendments to the Bill that would clear out some other ancient Church privileges, such as Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 1860, under which Peter Tatchell was charged when he interrupted a sermon by the then-Archbishop of Canterbury in Canterbury Cathedral. These further amendments were rejected by the Government and opposed by the bishops.
The Government had conducted a "short and sharp" consultation with the Church of England about the amendment, and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing.
Evan Harris said that this debate had been going on for 21 years, since the Law Commission had recommended abolition of the law, and for the Church it would never be the right time.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society attended the debate and welcomed the Lords' decision. He said: "The National Secular Society has been campaigning to abolish the blasphemy laws for 140 years. The laws have an iniquitous history of persecution, and because it is a common law offence with no limit on punishment, it has resulted in executions and imprisonments with hard labour for people who wrote and said things that would, in the modern day, be considered trivial. It is disgraceful that such a relic of religious savagery has survived into the 21st century."
Mr Porteous Wood pointed out that although the UK blasphemy laws are in the course of abolition, there is growing pressure in the Islamic world to outlaw so-called religious defamation. This pressure is being applied at the United Nations and its Human Rights Council. He commented: "If the United Nations Human Rights Council succumbs to the pressure from the Islamic countries to permit laws against religious defamation, it will be a major blow to freedom of expression, which underpins both democracy and civilisation itself. Nations who cherish freedom should wake up to the dangers of such moves, rather than sit idly by as they have done so far."
Some quotes from the debate in the House of Lords mentioning Richard Dawkins:
Lord Elystan-Morgan [seemingly a Christian judge]: I support the amendment, although in so doing I respect greatly the deep sincerity and total commitment with which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke. It is not a question of seeking to remove something from statute that has any real significance or life at the moment. If I felt that it had, I may well have taken a different approach. It is a part of the law that has essentially fallen into desuetude. It begs the question, therefore, whether one should allow it to clutter the statute book and the concept of our common law. If I am wrong, and it is still a live and relevant law, one has to look very carefully at the situation. There are many old laws that never end in prosecution because the practices that they condemn do not occur, or occur perhaps only once every half-century. That is not the situation here. I have read within the past few weeks The God Delusion by Professor Dawkins. I ask noble Lords to listen to the following passage. The author speaks of the God that we as Christians worship and states that He is, "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully". If that law counts for anything at all, it is clear that it will encompass a comment of that nature. I do not suggest for a moment that the learned professor, who is professor of philosophical studies at Oxford, should be prosecuted, but if one prosecuted people for expressions such as those, thousands of persons would be prosecuted year in, year out. I do not for, a second reason, believe that it is right for the law to remain as it is, and applaud the amendment for this reason: I can remember some 30 years ago some excellent programmes on television on a Sunday night, when various propositions of immense weight and substance were debated in a jury/courtroom format. I remember Lord Hailsham appearing on behalf of those who supported the existence of God. After a brilliant cross-examination and a splendid address to the jury, his party carried the day. I cannot remember who the acting judge was, but he asked Lord Hailsham, "Do you ask for costs?". Lord Hailsham, bouncing up and down like an electrified blancmange, as was his wont, said, "No, my Lord, my client does not require costs". May I suggest that the second and most profound reason here is that the good Lord does not require this defence? I do not know what my forebears, many of whom were non-conformist ministers, would say of that. Perhaps I shall have to meet them on the Day of Judgment, but I suggest that I will have far graver things to worry about on that particular occasion.
+ + +
Lord Elton: The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth is back in bouncing form on the Bishops' Bench, but could I persuade him that there is another path to take with honour and satisfaction? I was not going to take part until the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, rose and trailed the name of Dawkins and The God Delusion. I recommend that he reads a better and more recent book, The Dawkins Delusion?, which I am glad to see he has in his hand. The noble Lord's principal objection to the blasphemy law is that it does not work and is not used and that it is cluttering the statute book. I have yet to discover what harm is done by clutter on the statute book. It may incense people such as the noble and learned Lords, but it does not disturb most of us
+ + +
Lord Neill of Bladen: [complaining about the matter coming up as a late amendment, forced on the Government] The information is not and has not been properly before us. We have not had preparation time for this; there may be a mass of material that we could read, including earlier committee reports. My simple message is: let us not rush to judgment thinking that we are very wise today. There is no urgency about this at all. I have not detected any urgency. Even the learned Professor Dawkins does not say what a scandal these laws are or that they must be repealed immediately. I support earlier speakers on this.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, March 6, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 94 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #139669 by Mishakal on March 6, 2008 at 11:36 am
Well it looks like the "Lords" of Great Britian are treating The God Delusion as if it was a holy book like the Bible or the Koran...
Interesting twist of events...
Other Comments by Mishakal
3. Comment #139670 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 11:36 am
Wow, that Lord Elton is the biggest argument I can think of for the abolition of the House of Lords. Has he actually read McGrath's shudder-inducing Pessimum Opus or is he just irritated that Professor Dawkins is much, much more intelligent than he isn't?
Mind you, I've just checked up on him and I can't say I'm surprised. Not only is he one of the last hereditary peers still in the house, having inherited his place from his father and only remaining after the 1999 reforms thanks to the transition period, but he's also a member of the Conservative party (no surprises there then), held several middle-ranking government roles under Thatcher in the eighties (say not the name of the beast three times, for she shall appear!) and is a doddering 78 years old.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
4. Comment #139672 by jimbob on March 6, 2008 at 11:37 am
Huckabee would have to be elected president for the USA to have anything nearly as absurd as bishops in the house of lords.DISESTABLISH!!!!!
Other Comments by jimbob
5. Comment #139673 by nattyadams on March 6, 2008 at 11:38 am
Wonderful news! One step closer to keeping criticism of religion free from such stupid and misleading categorization as "hate speech."
But since when is professor Dawkins "professor of philosophical studies?" Fact check, m'lord?
Other Comments by nattyadams
6. Comment #139674 by The Reverend Dark on March 6, 2008 at 11:38 am
About God-damned, Allah-humping, Shiva-screwing, Moroni-Molesting, Yahweh-yanking, Thor-tossing, Odin-onaning, El-eating, Jesus-jerking, Mary-mating time!
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
7. Comment #139677 by scoobie on March 6, 2008 at 11:41 am
Lord Elton: I recommend that he reads a better and more recent book, The Dawkins Delusion?,
Oh dear, brains obviously not required for being a lord.
Other Comments by scoobie
8. Comment #139683 by Ultraviolet G on March 6, 2008 at 11:51 am
Dear Britain, what the hell is a "house of lords"??Signed, the 21st century.
Other Comments by Ultraviolet G
9. Comment #139691 by Cartomancer on March 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Actually, I reckon that instead of the House of Lords we should have an upper chamber consisting entirely of Richard Dawkins, Sir Patrick Moore, Stephen Fry and Terry Pratchett. Other Comments by Cartomancer
10. Comment #139696 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.I think the Baroness has perhaps misunderstood whom the blasphemy law was intended to protect from abuse!
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
11. Comment #139699 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing.Well, you can understand their concerns. "Now" is always going to be such a bad time for any reining in of Christian privilege ...
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
12. Comment #139701 by Saerain on March 6, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I fondly recall when my young sister, as the age of five, very expertly deduced that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God, and the Queen were mythical figures. Other Comments by Saerain
13. Comment #139710 by Corylus on March 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm
If you go to the original link from the NSS you can read the whole debate as a PDF. It is quite fascinating.
I have my political issues with the House of Lords, but I do give them credit for amazing vocabulary. I learnt two new words; that is well worth a half an hour read. (Dear me - are they bitchy too!)
Other Comments by Corylus
15. Comment #139714 by Verylee on March 6, 2008 at 12:25 pm
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing
I am confused. Why did they not explain why it was a bad time? Are they hiding something up their silky sleeves?
Other Comments by Verylee
16. Comment #139715 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Wonder how the other faiths will react, especially those that don't view Christianity or any western concept as worthy of interest.On another note, but still regarding blasphemy, I hear Wafa Sultan was a bit outspoken on Al Jazeera :-) Sounded good on the BBC World Service as I drove into work this morning. Made my day in fact and certainly made this sun shiney Friday a lot brighter!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY&feature=related
Other Comments by Goldy
17. Comment #139716 by Big T on March 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm
People on this website have bemoaned the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the USA, predicted that someone like Huckabee might win the presidency in November, threatened to leave the USA if that happens, and generally criticized American ignorance. Well, Huckabee is out of the race, all the remaining candidates seem to believe in evolution, and we have the First Amendment, not anti-blasphemy statutes. Maybe America is less backward and Europe a tad less enlightened than some claim?Other Comments by Big T
18. Comment #139720 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Maybe America is less backward and Europe a tad less enlightened than some claim?
Yes.
Only thing, though - we (well Britons. Having emigrated to NZ, not sure if I count as one anymore) don't elect our religiously deluded...
But in the main, yes. In fact, I'd go as far as saying the Americans and Europeans are the same. They didn't strike me as any more or less odd than the average European.
Other Comments by Goldy
19. Comment #139721 by Peacebeuponme on March 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Just need to get those Bishops' arses off the bench now.Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
20. Comment #139722 by Dune010 on March 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The phrase "Lords Approve Abolition of Blasphemy" is quite misleading. Doesn't the lack of the word "Law" on the end completely change the meaning? Other Comments by Dune010
21. Comment #139727 by issue99 on March 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm
A step in the right direction. Would it be absurd to hope for further reforms in the direction of secularism?I think Professor Dawkins would be an ideal candidate for ennoblment, as a counterweight to the bishops who are only there by virtue of their position in the church of england.
Other Comments by issue99
22. Comment #139731 by Vaal on March 6, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Lord Elton: I was not going to take part until the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, rose and trailed the name of Dawkins and The God Delusion.
I recommend that he reads a better and more recent book, The Dawkins Delusion?
Hmmm, so Lord Elton, the Dawkins Delusion is a "better" book, and what is the relevance of it being more recent? How would it be less recent considering the title. One doubts quite sincerely if he ever read the God delusion.
Perhaps he should read Paula's devastating rebuttal of the flea books?
How does one become a Lord? Can we recommend Paula or RD? Actually, I think Hitchens would be a GREAT Lord. Imagine him ruffling the feathers of all those pompous oafs.
The Bishops Bench, is that the dunce bench? Maybe that is why they wear those hats.
Good news that this asinine non law is finally being consigned to the dustbin of history, after centuries of sadistic homicidal abuse.
What worries me is why they are even debating it in the 21st Century and that there is ANYONE with any grey matter between their ears who could possibly support it?
Other Comments by Vaal
23. Comment #139739 by PaulJ on March 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The phrase "Lords Approve Abolition of Blasphemy" is quite misleading. Doesn't the lack of the word "Law" on the end completely change the meaning?Not really. Blasphemy as a concept is entirely defined in terms of law. Abolishing the law abolishes the thing itself.
Other Comments by PaulJ
24. Comment #139745 by robotaholic on March 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Comment #139683 by Ultraviolet G:
Dear Britain, what the hell is a "house of lords"??
Signed, the 21st century.
=)) lol! that was hilarious...
Other Comments by robotaholic
25. Comment #139748 by Quine on March 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I am surprised Prof. Dawkins' remarks about the "victimless crime" bumper sticker were not read out in this 'debate.' 
Other Comments by Quine
26. Comment #139760 by rod-the-farmer on March 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Big T said
all the remaining candidates seem to believe in evolution,
Easy there, big fella. There is a move afoot to have all the candidates debate science. Not sure that debate will ever happen. From what I have read so far, a number of them would NOT come out in favour of evolution, unless they were to say creationism/intelligent design should be taught along side.
It would be nice if they believed in evolution, but I think you are too optimistic.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
27. Comment #139763 by clunkclickeverytrip on March 6, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Altogether now:BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME!
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
28. Comment #139767 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Comment #139763 by clunkclickeverytrip Altogether now:
BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME!
Also, one assumes that if the victim did indeed exist, it would be more than capable of defending themselves.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
29. Comment #139770 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 1:26 pm
BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME!
Depends if one is the blasphemer or the blasphemee too, I guess....
Other Comments by Goldy
30. Comment #139790 by D'Arcy on March 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm
So Lord Dolittle and Lady Doless have pontificated, so now it's okay so say "bollocks to all your gods", without fear of prosecution. Well from now on, I must be more forthright with my contributions! Other Comments by D'Arcy
31. Comment #139791 by black wolf on March 6, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.
Wut? To paraphrase: "They're taking our second-best tool of blackmail away, WAAAAAAAHHH!"
LibDem PWNZ feudalism
about time^^
Now, on to the bishops. 3yrs2months to go by my calculation^^
By his words, Lord Elystan-Morgan is a very respectable person. A believer who puts his own opinion below popular opinion and the expressed will of the citizens, in spite of his own strong feelings but nevertheless acknowledging that his God must no be belittled to need human protection.
Lord Elton: A dishonest reactionary. Must he be reminded that the death penalty, laws outlawing homosexuality and the Norther Ireland Penal Law also used to 'clutter the statute book'?
Lord Neill: "Even the learned Professor Dawkins does not say what a scandal these laws are or that they must be repealed immediately." O RLY?
Other Comments by black wolf
32. Comment #139795 by black wolf on March 6, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I hear Wafa Sultan was a bit outspoken on Al Jazeera :-) Sounded good on the BBC World Service as I drove into work this morning. Made my day in fact and certainly made this sun shiney Friday a lot brighter!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY&feature=related
Is it just me, or does Arabic sound like a beautiful language when someone who's not an Islamist uses it?
And the guy debating against her actually uses the 'Hitler killed 50 million' argument against her! Hypocrisy isn't nearly strong enough to describe these Holocaust-denying scumbags. By his line of reasoning, it's just a matter of adding death tolls to wash Islam clean. In other words, he wants to wait until WWIII is over before deciding that Islam may not be the religion of peace.
Wow, that woman has her history down to the detail, amazing. The professor is on the verge of crying.
I retract the last statement. She says America is not to blame for the killing of natives after 1776, she's wrong there.
Other Comments by black wolf
33. Comment #139797 by Adam Morrison on March 6, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.
Uhhhh.... right. Because I wasn't badmouthing poofists yesterday (or last week in Mexico, or last year in Canada, or ....)
Well all I can say now is ... (deep breath in breath in):
*Screams a heinously blasphemous string of obscenities that drive the birds from Leicester, causes several old ladies to faint, causes 2 premature births, and is so grossly overdone that my keyboard dissolved when I tried to type it*
Ahhh... I feel... so clean... so refreshed
Other Comments by Adam Morrison
34. Comment #139798 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Is it just me, or does Arabic sound like a beautiful language when someone who's not an Islamist uses it?
:-) It is quite a nice language. Apparently rather poetic. I, unfortunately, rely on translations, as I did on the BBC. Should be online on the news - BBC.co.uk - go to the news section or listen to the World Service online on the hour.
Other Comments by Goldy
35. Comment #139819 by jshuey on March 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm
"Maybe America is less backward and Europe a tad less enlightened than some claim?"
The news is even better than that: In this week's Republican Primary a pro-evolution Republican beat a Creation Science nutter even though he outspent her 12 to 1! IN TEXAS!
Other Comments by jshuey
36. Comment #139820 by Shane McKee on March 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Indeed, Arabic is a lovely language. I learned a bit in Nazareth in Israel, where I worked in the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society Hospital for a while. I went out a Christian, and came back an atheist :-)My Arabic is pretty crap though, but Allahu mish akbar.
Other Comments by Shane McKee
37. Comment #139826 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Indeed, Arabic is a lovely language. I learned a bit in Nazareth in Israel, where I worked in the Edinburgh Medical Missionary Society Hospital for a while. I went out a Christian, and came back an atheist :-)
My Arabic is pretty crap though, but Allahu mish akbar.
I spent 4 childhood years in Abu Dhabi and worked 8 months in Syria (Deir Ezzor). So far all I can say is wahed birra, shukran. Mind you, did learn to treat arak with respect and never to touch Al Sharq beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_beer) - might be half the price of Heineken brought over from Turkey, but christ you feel like death the next day!
Other Comments by Goldy
38. Comment #139827 by arogop on March 6, 2008 at 2:32 pm
35. Comment #139819 by jshuey
The news is even better than that: In this week's Republican Primary a pro-evolution Republican beat a Creation Science nutter even though he outspent her 12 to 1! IN TEXAS!
I knew there were a few of us out there!!!!
Other Comments by arogop
39. Comment #139829 by mmurray on March 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I have my political issues with the House of Lords, but I do give them credit for amazing vocabulary. I learnt two new words; that is well worth a half an hour read.
Five minutes of Christopher Hitchens does it for me :-)
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
40. Comment #139875 by HourglassMemory on March 6, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I can only say one thing:Good.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
41. Comment #139882 by alexlg on March 6, 2008 at 3:51 pm
How does one become a Lord? Can we recommend Paula or RD? Actually, I think Hitchens would be a GREAT Lord.
Well, anyone can nominate anyone else these days. Check out the page here: http://www.lordsappointments.gov.uk/
Let's get everyone to fill out the application form on behalf of Hitchens. That'll teach 'em.
Other Comments by alexlg
42. Comment #139895 by Wrought on March 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm
To non-UK readers:There was a sort of "test" vote in March 2007 where the Commons decided the Upper House should be fully elected, and so it looks like the Lords are on the way out.
It's a shame in a way; they're the most fun part of Parliament.
There's 26 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords, and they have to go.
The Law Lords are being moved in 2009 to a Supreme Court anyway, so they're disappearing.
By the way, it's just the UK with apppointed Lords, the rest of Europe doesn't have such a thing. They're more democratic, but we're getting there.
Most of Europe also has secularism written into their constitution, although there's a few noticeable exceptions (Ireland etc).
The UK is the only European country without a codified written constitution though... so give us a break, we're getting there! We have to do everything piecemeal, changing one thing at a time. We've not had any major calamities to make us start from scratch like most places in the world! (Eg. After Franco in Spain, after WW2 in Germany, after Revolution in France, etc, when constitutions get written.)
Other Comments by Wrought
43. Comment #139902 by 4horsefins on March 6, 2008 at 4:43 pm
It sure did seem to me like Richard was getting an excessive amount of press in the matter. Lets steal the statement Huckabee stole from someone else... ...you know your directly over the target when you start receiving the most fire.Other Comments by 4horsefins
44. Comment #139903 by perkyjay on March 6, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I think most of the posters to this point,#41 when I joined the conversation, have their knickers so twisted that they didn't pay any attention to the heading of the NSS article,"Lords approve abolition of Blasphemy" to which I can only say, "Thank the Lords".
Other Comments by perkyjay
45. Comment #139905 by black wolf on March 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm
As we were on a bit abot Arabic, I might as well post this sad news here:Eight killed at Jerusalem school
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282269.stm
"School has played a major role in ideology and theology of Israeli religious settlement movement
Key figures linked to the school were strongly opposed to Israeli pull-out from Gaza"
"The Palestinian Islamist group, Hamas, praised the attack, calling it "heroic", but did not claim responsibility. There was also celebratory gunfire in Gaza."
"In the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, gunmen fired into the air after news broke about the attack. A loudspeaker in Gaza City reportedly broadcast the message: "This is God's vengeance"."
Other Comments by black wolf
46. Comment #139914 by LorienRyan on March 6, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Time to call the plaintiff to the witness stand... Other Comments by LorienRyan
47. Comment #139917 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Great, now please can we have the same in Germany?Doubt it will happen - after all, the strongest party in Germany is actually called "Christian Democratic Union", and it's Bavarian local counterpart (even more conservative) is the "Christian Social Union".
They would never approve. Another obstacle is that our blasphemy law is linked to "disturbance of the peace".
It forbids insulting or slandering any religious world-view in a way that is "apt to cause a disturbance of the peace".
This way the religious can always argue that this paragraph protects not the religious world-view, but public peace.
This is ludicrous, ridiculous, it's insulting and maddening! What this paragraph we in Germany states is nothing less that "Well, you cannot trust the religious not to resort to disturbing the public peace when their religion gets insulted, but we won't punish them, we'll punish whoever does something that COULD make them disturb the public peace"
I mean, does it get any more ridiculous, patronizing, condescending and insulting?
Sadly, there's currently NO PARTY that even plans on doing something against that.
Oh, and of course - religious education is part of the mandatory curriculum at public schools here (although you can take Ethics or Philosophy instead - but only if you're over 14 and officially declare that you no longer want to participate in religious education. If you're under 14, your parents get to decide.)
And all this although we have a very secular society.
Sometimes I really get desperate and depressed.
Other Comments by MPhil
48. Comment #139923 by FightingFalcon on March 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm
"People on this website have bemoaned the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the USA, predicted that someone like Huckabee might win the presidency in November, threatened to leave the USA if that happens, and generally criticized American ignorance. Well, Huckabee is out of the race, all the remaining candidates seem to believe in evolution, and we have the First Amendment, not anti-blasphemy statutes. Maybe America is less backward and Europe a tad less enlightened than some claim?"Hear hear! I have been getting sick and tired of the claims of Christian fundamentalism taking over America on this website for some time. Yes, we have our fair share of nut-jobs but we aren't alone. We've got three individuals running for president who all seem to accept evolution (McCain is questionable) and have distanced themselves from the religious right. Hell, with McCain's nomination, we can be assured that Christian fundamentalists will be marginalized for at least four years. I think the biggest thing I'm looking forward to in February 2009 is the Religious Right losing its greatest ally - the man in the White House.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
49. Comment #139924 by Garic on March 6, 2008 at 6:46 pm
MPhil,
Is the religious education in Deutschland done with a historical slant or with intent to make "believers" out of the children? I think more of a religious history approach to things may have some positive aspects... maybe that religious education is related someway to your society being highly secular?
(Trying to give you some reason to hope... is it helping?...If not, may I suggest kicking back a Paulaner Hefe-Weizen? That always makes me feel better!)
Other Comments by Garic
50. Comment #139931 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Well, McCain has pandered to the religious right. He was criticized by his party-members for distancing himself from them earlier - then he gently approached them again. Still, I think he would keep them under control, yes.However, that doesn't mean the last statement of your first paragraph is correct. Some aspects of American religiosity you just don't get in central Europe. For any political candidate, the maximum they could get away with and still be elected would be "Mosques should be no higher than churches because of our Christian cultural heritage" - and the only ones who would even make that a topic in the election are the far right candidates.
Also, here in Germany, anything like Jesus Camp or Baby Bible Bashers is frankly unimaginable and would be frowned upon by everyone. In fact, even the evangelical protestants say about Jesus camp "That is so far out it doesn't represent our position at all".
Also, biblical literalism is almost entirely unheard of - in fact, I have never even heard of ANYONE claiming absolute biblical literalism, with Young Earth Creationism and all that.
Also, there is not a substantial percentage of people who believe that Jesus will come back to earth in their lifetime. In fact, never heard of anyone claiming that as well.
No one would claim that their nation has "God's chosen people" living in them.
Look at the numbers of what percentage of people believe in evolution, unguided evolution, biblical literalism etc.
There IS a substantial difference. And I for one think it has a lot to do with population-density, education-system, and the fact that in the US, religion is free market enterprise and uses all the advertising techniques and psychological advertisement-tricks they can.
Other Comments by MPhil
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."
Richard Dawkins
"The position I have always adopted is that much of animal nature is indeed altruistic, cooperative and even attended by benevolent subjective emotions, but that this follows from, rather than contradicts, selfishness at the genetic level."
Richard Dawkins
"With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns."
Richard Dawkins
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks
"Sex brought into existence the gene pool, made meaningful the species, and changed the whole ball game of evolution itself."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #139667 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 6, 2008 at 11:33 am
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy